BOKARO STEEL WORKERS UNION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this application, claiming to represent the Bokaro Steel Workers Union as its General Secretary seeks to challenge the directions contained in the communication dated 25.7.1994 addressed by the Labour Commissioner, Bihar, to the General Secretary, Rastriya Mazdoor Congress. This communication (Copy at Annexure 4) states that in the Bokaro Workers Union, registration No. 1034, affiliated to the INTUC, an internal dispute had come into existence on account of the conflicting claims of two factions to be its rightful office bearers. It was further stated that one C.L. Srivastava (Respondent No. 3), the leader of one faction claimed that the Union's election was held in 1991 in which he was elected as its General Secretary, similarly one P.N. Tripathi, the leader of the other faction (after whose demise the present Petitioner claims to have assumed the office of the General Secretary) claimed that the Union's election was held in 1992 when he was elected the General Secretary of the Union. The letter goes on to state that on enquiry it was found that neither of the two elections, on which the rival factions founded their respective claims, was in accordance with the Union's Constitution and it was accordingly decided that an election of the office bearers of the union be held through the national headquarter of INTUC and following the procedures provided in the Union's Constitution. The letter further directs that the election will be held under the supervision of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro Steel City as the representative of the Registrar, Trade Unions and the list of the office bearers prepared on the basis of this election and duly, counter-signed by the Registrar's representative shall be accepted as the list of the validly elected office bearers. The letter concludes with the direction that the election must be held within three months from the date of the letter failing which further action would be taken in terms of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act and the Code of Discipline framed by the department. The letter, however, does not disclose the source of power for the Labour Commissioner/Trade Union Registrar to issue the directions of the nature as stated above.

(2.) Each of the rival factions claiming to lawfully represent the union has its own story to narrate. I need not go into the details of the rival claims for the simple reason that this Court in this application would not undertake an adjudication on the merits of the conflicting claims involving disputed questions of facts. It would be, however, appropriate to note the following facts which are not in dispute.

(3.) According to the Petitioner, an election was held on 24.8.1990 in which Messrs Bindeshwari Dubey and P.N. Tripathi (since deceased) were elected as the President and the General Secretary respectively of the union. The intimation in this regard was duly given to the Registrar, Trade Unions as required under Section 28 of the Trade Unions Act. It appears that Mr. Srivastava (Respondent No. 3) had then raised a dispute before the Registrar regarding the alleged election of the Petitioner's faction as the office bearers of the union and questioning the validity of the election said to have been held on 24.8.1990. The Registrar appears to have referred the dispute to the parent body, the INTUC and on the advice received from it 'recognised' the members of the Petitioner's faction as the duly elected office bearers of the union vide his letter dated 15.9.1990 addressed to the General Manager, Bokaro Steel Plant (copy at Annexure 1). This letter appears to have been challenged first by filing a writ petition being CWJC No. 2009/1990 (R) before the Ranchi Bench of this Court. But this Court declined to interfere in the matter and then Mr. Srivastava filed a suit being T.S. No. 87/1990 in the Court of Munsif, Chas. This suit was later withdrawn but on the same day Anr. suit being T.S. No. 120/1990 was filed questioning the validity of the election said to have been held on 24.8.90 and also challenging the Registrar's letter dated 15.9.90. In this suit, in addition to the members of the Petitioner's faction the Registrar, Trade Union and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro were impleaded as Defendants. It is also an admitted fact that in this suit the Munsif, Chas granted an order of injunction restraining the members of the Petitioner's faction from functioning as the office bearers of the union. In appeal, however, the injunction order was set aside by the VIth Addl. District Judge, Dhanbad and the appellate order was affirmed when the injunction matter came before the High Court.